plot Is this a plot hole?

[harmonica44]

I have a script where kidnappers are broadcasting the threat of killing their hostage, to the person who is paying the ransom. However, the broadcast is live. But why? Why not just prerecord the video, then broadcast it? Why would the kidnappers broadcast it live?

Obviously I want the kidnappers to show it live for suspense purposes, but they could pre-record it for convenience, plus then the signal of where the video is coming from, can be traced, and the bad guys could be gone by then, if they pre-record it. So is their a reason why they would do it live?

Oh also, I was wondering, if I should use a 'FADE IN', since a lot of people don't seem to be using that in modern scripts lately, or does it still make a good impression to use one?

Thanks!

 

[Birdman]

Sorry, Birdman, but believability and plot hole are two completely different things.

There are hundreds of reasons why the kidnappers might have/want to broadcast live, but it's up to harmonica to write the best one.

If I saw a movie where a bank heister suddenly took off his mask, I'm not thinking "the writer screwed up!"... I'm thinking "what is the writer trying to say about this particular character that he doesn't care if his face is shown?"

And in the case of the wiki definition, illogical means that it doesn't make sense in a literal way i.e. the fact that a particular occurrence negates another occurrence, making it illogical in that sequence of events. Literal, and not subjective. You should have highlighted the section that says "unlikely behaviour or actions of characters" which is subjective, but I wouldn't use a publicly edited website to define a word anyway.

...No, I'm going to have to blatantly disagree with you on this issue. If you have your characters do something that affects the overall plot, and they do so in a way that is "illogical or stupid" ...you've clearly got yourself a "plot hole".

It's a plot hole because you've typed yourself into a corner. You've come up with a plot strategy that is flawed by its own nature and the only way out is to have your characters do something that defies all reason and expectation. You are FORCED to have your characters behave in a stupid way because the overall plot design is flawed.

It has nothing to do with "what the writer is trying to say about a character". The ONLY thing the writer is saying is that he didn't have a good way out of a particular situation, he's stuck in a hole and that he hopes you never discover it.


PLOT HOLES:

Spider-Man 3 (2007): Flint Marko has his whole body turned into sand including his belt buckle and any other metal he happens to be wearing. If all of this turned into sand then why was the locket fine without it turning into sand as well?

The Bourne Identity (2002): In Paris, why does the assassin go to the ridiculous amount of trouble of swinging into the room on a rope with a machine gun when he came in from the lobby (as proved by the dead woman downstairs)? Alternatively, if his intention was always to surprise Bourne by coming in through the window, why venture downstairs at all?

The above two examples are "plot holes". Spider Man was a plot hole based on technical illogic with the inconsistency being in the behavior of the metals. The Bourne Identity's plot hole was based on the illogical actions of the assassin.

A plot hole is anything that has someone questioning the merits of the movie based on certain happenings. If you have a character who develops a complicated bank robbery scheme, plots out every detail, and then removes his mask at a completely stupid time ...the viewer doesn't think, "Gee, I wonder what is going on with this character to make him do something this stupid"? They think to themselves, "Shit, I can't believe I paid $15 for this piece of shit movie".

I'm sorry, ...but that's reality.

-Birdman

 

[Rebelarch86]

I'm just a newb here but this is not what I think should get knocked as a plot hole. There's nothing missing from it, or a change coming with out a set up, it's simply a not the smartest plan for the characters to make. And how often in life do people do the smartest thing possible?

Just bc you the writer can think of a better way doesn't mean your characters have to. Remember they're not omnipotent.

 

[Birdman]

I'm just a newb here but this is not what I think should get knocked as a plot hole. There's nothing missing from it, or a change coming with out a set up, it's simply not the smartest plan for the characters to make. And how often in life do people do the smartest thing possible?

Just bc you the writer can think of a better way doesn't mean your characters have to. Remember they're not omnipotent.

There are millions of screenplay writers that can write a mediocre screenplay with "acceptable" plot holes. The ones who rise to the top figure out how to do it WITHOUT the plot holes. People are paying their money to see SMART PLANS! Hollywood is paying money for SMART PLANS!

The only way you can get away with a bad plan and stupid characters is if your movie is BASED on a stupid plan with stupid characters. (Like a "Road Trip" or "Animal House" type of movie). You do a "Mission Impossible" type movie with stupid characters and plot holes... and you've doomed yourself from page 1.

Look, if you want to watch simple characters executing poorly-designed plans... just watch an episode of "Cops". You want to write an A++ screenplay that Hollywood would be willing to invest millions of dollars in? ...Write a script without the fucking plot holes!

-Birdman

 

[dynosprite]

Look, if you want to watch simple characters executing poorly-designed plans... just watch an episode of "Cops". You want to write an A++ screenplay that Hollywood would be willing to invest millions of dollars in? ...Write a script without the fucking plot holes!

-Birdman

Or make a film like Airheads?

Do you think Michael Mann was in the wrong for writing it so that in Heat Waingro shoots Guard Two during the armored truck heist?

Not all characters think on the same level or react to the same situations the same way.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[moonshieldmedia]

There are millions of screenplay writers that can write a mediocre screenplay with "acceptable" plot holes. The ones who rise to the top figure out how to do it WITHOUT the plot holes. People are paying their money to see SMART PLANS! Hollywood is paying money for SMART PLANS!

The only way you can get away with a bad plan and stupid characters is if your movie is BASED on a stupid plan with stupid characters. (Like a "Road Trip" or "Animal House" type of movie). You do a "Mission Impossible" type movie with stupid characters and plot holes... and you've doomed yourself from page 1.

Look, if you want to watch simple characters executing poorly-designed plans... just watch an episode of "Cops". You want to write an A++ screenplay that Hollywood would be willing to invest millions of dollars in? ...Write a script without the fucking plot holes!

-Birdman

Well your mistake is assuming the OP is trying to write a "Mission Impossible type movie" but nowhere in his post does he mention the genre. He mentioned he wants suspense, which can mean anything.

Nobody is disagreeing with you that the best screenplays have no plot holes or unbelievable characters actions. I just think a writer has to be able to think outside the box when it comes to character motivations.

And in my original suggestion to the OP (which you shot down) about having one of the villains be the stupid one who messes up the plan while the main evil villain executes him for his mistake, is a common trope that happens in almost every single action movie in the 90s and is still used to this day. Written right into those million dollar screenplays you keep talking about.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks people. I need the villains to be smart I would think so that they can stay ahead of the police for so long. I guess they can get stupid now, now that this is close to when they are busted in on, and caught, but having them decide to make the last video live, just doesn't seem convincing since you think they would think that out first. Especially when all the previous ransom videos were pre-made and sent. The last few are the only live ones as the deadline draws near, so why make it live, and risk of being traced and caught in time, when they are so close to the end?

I could write it so that it's not live, but close to live. They make it and send it right after, and are still in the same place when found, cause they are waiting for the deadline to be met, before broadcasting the live video, which would be the victim being executed video.

I know a lot of people assume the cops are dumb often in real life, but in cases when people are being held for ransom, on live internet broadcasts, the police realistically would tend to smarten up real quick in that situation. So I need to write it so that they are not stupid enough to get caught easily, since they have been able to stay steps ahead of the police the whole time.

As far as having one of the guys be stupid and destroying a tape so that they have to record it live... Well I writing the script so we see it from the point of view of the innocent characters, watching the ransom videos that were sent to them. I did not want to tell it from the point of view of the villains till after the police bust in on them and keep them a mystery until then. So I don't want to write it so we see the villains before then. Their is still plenty of time to get to know them and their characters afterwards.

However, as far as having on of the villains execute his own men, I usually do not believe that when I see it in a movie. You think that if a boss did that to one of his men, then his other men would loose respect and start a coup. I believe it in some movies like The Dark Knight Rises, where they religiously believe that if your boss kills you, he had a good reason, but most more average American criminals, such as mine, do not believe in that.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Instead of making the villain suddenly "stupid" somewhere along the line he makes a mistake. It doesn't matter how smart someone is, they will make mistakes. Professional quarterbacks throw interceptions, doctors misdiagnose patients, accountants transpose numbers, Oscar winning actors flub lines on the set.

Most mistakes are caused by ego or by "weaknesses." In fact, most criminals get caught by talking too much or giving in to whatever; maybe your bad guy likes hookers or gambling. Maybe he is really smart, but the law of unintended consequences catches up with him, or even just fate/chance intervenes.

Also keep in mind that, in "real" life, most criminal investigations are boring and tedious, not the sudden clues, conclusions and resolutions so prevalent in film and TV. The police, FBI, etc. collect copious forensics and interview witnesses & anyone else who comes up on their radar. That's when they pick up the "mistakes" and slowly, carefully build their case


If your bad guy is smart he prerecords his victim and the potential execution then stashes the victim somewhere else - or has already killed him - then moves around a lot using burner cell phones for whatever communications are needed.


Start with how you want to finish, then work backwards from there.

I would suggest that, if you want "realism" in your scripts, you should read criminal investigation texts like "The Practical Homicide Investigation Checklist and Field Guide," "Homicide Investigation: Practical Information for Coroners, Police Officers, and Other Investigators", "Homicide Investigation Field Guide" and similar books as well as "memoirs" by those who have cracked famous cases. You could also go to a local cop bar and buy drinks; cops love to talk about their work.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks for the info. And thanks Alcove for the book suggestions. And one poster also said I don't need to have an explanation. However, when the cops are intercepting the video, they have to realize that it's live. One of them will something like "Holy S#$5 this one is live?" The other will say "This one's live?"

And then that will be the only explanation. That's sort of how I wrote it originally. Just so long as the audience doesn't question why it's live compared to the other ones not being, and then it's okay I guess.